Skip to main content

LIC pulled up, asked to pay Rs. 1.06 lakh for harassing claimant

Life Insurance Corporation has been pulled up by a consumer forum here for "knowingly harassing" the widow of a policy holder by denying her claim and directed to pay her Rs. 1.06 lakh.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that as per the conditions of the policy issued to the complainant's husband no medical report was required, but LIC had denied the claim on the ground that he had not disclosed that he had been suffering from TB for over four years.

"We have gone through the contents of complaint and noticed that non-medical policy for sum assured of Rs. 50,000 was issued to the complainant by opposite party (LIC) over which there is no medical report is required as per norms of LIC policy.

"Despite the above facts, opposite party deliberately/arbitrarily denied the claim without supporting evidence which is a clear case of deficiency/unfair trade practice that opposite party knowingly harassed consumers without any reason except to suck the blood just like a blood hounder as if money goes from LIC officials' pocket," a bench presided by CK Chaturvedi said.

The forum directed LIC to pay Delhi resident Hasmukhi Devi the assured amount of Rs. 50,000 under the policy along with Rs. 35,000 as compensation and Rs. 21,000 as cost of litigation.

According to Devi, her husband Ram Avtar, who was insured under a LIC policy since December 12, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 had died on April 11, 2005, during the period of the insurance cover.

She had filed the claim for assured amount after that and the same was rejected by LIC.

LIC had rejected the claim on the ground that her husband had been suffering from TB for over four years and had not disclosed the same while availing the policy.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/LIC-pulled-up-asked-to-pay-Rs-1-06-lakh-for-harassing-claimant/Article1-1095981.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...